It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why God Exist!!!?

page: 13
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

spy66

SisyphusRide
if we go along with the big bang, then to laymen like me it would seem that...

the big bang already happened, this explosion has a finite size based in the mass contained, and that the galaxies are a result of the condensation of said ejected mass.

so the universe is finite


You do know from what you say above that there never could have been a BANG right?

You do seam to know that the singularity was very hot since you mention condensation.

Just that should tell you something very important about the space surrounding the singularity and why the singularity can expand outwards in volume.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


the big bangs is a little hard for me to swallow, or just quit on.

God has always existed and is infinite...




posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

SisyphusRide

spy66
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 






then this is speculation no? the current incarnation has been expanding 13+BY, but if we will never ever see the end, then how can we measure anything but our observable distance.


Yes, the true age of our universe is nothing but a calculated speculation. Our scientists can not measure more than what their techonlogy will let them. That is common sense.

But some people will confuse the accuracy of the age with what has been measured. Remember they have only measured the acurate age out to 13+.

That is why you have to read scientific data very carefully to pic these things up.


so "we see" the universe as 13 billion years old...

it's very different than saying the universe "is" 13 billion years old...

how can science be so misleading? is it on purpose to generate interest...?
edit on 20-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



Scientific data have to pass through different chanels before they are published.
There are also many different authors who publish their version to the public as well. Why formulate the information the way they do. I have no answer to that.

But all you have to do is look up the equipent that was used and read the spec. From that you can figure out what was really measured, and compare it to the information published.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

spy66

SisyphusRide

spy66
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 






then this is speculation no? the current incarnation has been expanding 13+BY, but if we will never ever see the end, then how can we measure anything but our observable distance.


Yes, the true age of our universe is nothing but a calculated speculation. Our scientists can not measure more than what their techonlogy will let them. That is common sense.

But some people will confuse the accuracy of the age with what has been measured. Remember they have only measured the acurate age out to 13+.

That is why you have to read scientific data very carefully to pic these things up.


so "we see" the universe as 13 billion years old...

it's very different than saying the universe "is" 13 billion years old...

how can science be so misleading? is it on purpose to generate interest...?
edit on 20-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



Scientific data have to pass through different chanels before they are published.
There are also many different authors who publish their version to the public as well. Why formulate the information the way they do. I have no answer to that.

But all you have to do is look up the equipent that was used and read the spec. From that you can figure out what was really measured, and compare it to the information published.


I'll do this when I get back... it's out for Indian food night here.

I have a feeling it is going to be the most distant object though... and not the interstellar medium.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 



the complexity and precision are proof of intelligent design...

as we understand intelligence


Well, we know that intellgince makes mistakes in design.

Take for instance a bridge.

I am sure that builders have made mistakes in their designs of bridges before. What makes intelligence intelligent, is the fact that, a sentient creature can tell when a design flaw has been made.

In that way, our mistakes are proof of our intelligence, because we are in a constant state of learning from them and making our designs better.

As for as all of creation, we seem to have been stuck together in a very helter skelter fashion if we are the product of intelligent design.

Like our esophagus and larynx. Choking on food and dying because of it is a sign of a bad design. The larynx and esophagus should not be connected the way they are. A good designer would realize that mistake and correct it. We have yet to be corrected.

Or what about the appendix? An organ that may have served a function at some point in our past but no longer does, and could potentially rupture and kill us.

What if an architect designed a home with a murder hole within in a room in the house? We don't use murder holes anymore, so the room would serve no function. What if he put a bomb in the murder hole, and you have no clue as to whether or not the bomb will go off? And the only way to remove the bomb is by tearing through the foundation of the home?

The entire concept would be an example of poor design.

There are many examples throughout nature of poor design.

The connection of the larynx and esaphagus is a bad design.

The fact that you have to brush your teeth to stop them from rotting out of your head is a bad design.

An entity that is incapable of intrinsically providing its own energy, instead of being reliant on it's outer environment for food, is a bad design.

Connecting the eliminative and sexual organs as one is a bad design.

And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and disconnect the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of being reliant on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.

But, here we are with all of those things still intact.

Honestly, there are so many glaring errors in our "design" I can't fathom how anyone would think we were created by anything intelligent.
edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


Let me ask; Poor design you say. To who's standard?

The way we live is not even natural. We live in a human designed world. Are we designed to fit into our own designed world?

Or are we designed to live differently by a different standard of intelligence?


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



Let me ask; Poor design you say. To who's standard?


To any being with intelligence.

The larynx and esaphagus is a design flaw.

An input into a system should wind up lodged in a place where it can destroy the system.

That is a design flaw.


The way we live is not even natural. We live in a human designed world. Are we designed to fit into our own designed world?


Actually, if we are natural parts of the Earth, then the way we live would be natural.

If a human builds a skyscraper we say it's "man-made."
If a beaver builds a damn we say it's "beaver-made." Well, actually, we don't say that. If a beaver builds a damn, we don't see the damn as "artifical." The damn is part of nature.

Likewise, our skyscrapers are not artificial. They are part of nature. They may be a cancer, but they are still natural. just like the beaver damn.


Or are we designed to live differently?


If we were designed to live differently, we would not be living as we are now.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 





To any being with intelligence.


It is a bit selfish dont you think? I would not brag to much about the quality of our standards.




The larynx and esaphagus is a design flaw.

I think there are many people out there that want to fix more than one thing when it comes to body parts. And i dont think the Larynx is very high on that list of flaws.

If our design was intended to be perfect the rest of the design would have to be perfect as well. That would have created a whole different situation for everything. And maby a different world for every living thing.

Have you ever made a intelligent thought that there might be a very good reason why we are designed the way we are, for a reason other than our selfish standards. Because our standards means nothing in the big picture.




Actually, if we are natural parts of the Earth, then the way we live would be natural.


Jesse's, do you really mean that?
We have altered and changed our natural way of life over time too fit our selfish standards. There is nothing natural about our standards, but our selfishnes have been cept intact.




If a human builds a skyscraper we say it's "man-made."
If a beaver builds a damn we say it's "beaver-made." Well, actually, we don't say that. If a beaver builds a damn, we don't see the damn as "artifical." The damn is part of nature.

Likewise, our skyscrapers are not artificial. They are part of nature. They may be a cancer, but they are still natural. just like the beaver damn.


Would it be natural if the beaver suddenly built a skyscraper?
Would you accept the the beavers progress?





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


You do realize it's "dam", not "damn", right? One's a beaver-made structure, the other is a curse word. Learn the difference.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by edmc^2
 


One thing is not proof of another thing.

A is not proof of B.

A tree is not proof of unicorns.

The universe is not proof of God.

An actual God would be proof of (a) God.

Some footprints found in mud would only be evidence.


Sorry but your math and your logic doesn't compute.

So if "The universe is not proof of God" then what is the universe proof of then?

Remember your own logic: A is not proof of B.

As for your comment about "bad design" - quoted below:




And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and disconnect the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of being reliant on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.


It has no bearing on the existence of God just as an explosion of a house has no bearing on the question of whether E = mc2.

In addition, how can you confidently conclude that a design is bad just because of an accident or misused?

Using your own logic, what you're basically saying is that, if a person swallows a chunk of food too soon and too fast and starts choking, it means that his esophagus was a bad design. Correct?

If so, what kind of logic is that?

Furthermore, there are almost 8 billion people in the world, if the esophagus was a bad design, should we all be chocking to death by now?

Furthermore, how did you know that the esophagus was in the wrong place without knowing the full functionality of every organ and system of the entire human body?

Haven't it occurred to you that its location is just right with respect to the rest of the body?

For instance, many thought that the appendix was a useless organ. But come to find out, its very presence is important to the immune system.

But really, it's the height of arrogance to say that the human body is a "bad design" while possessing a very very limited knowledge about it.

It's like a first grader criticizing that a Stingray Corvette is a "bad design" just because he sees something not quite right based on his current experience and understanding.

It's nonsense to say the least.

But in the end your post goes back to this:

Does the imperfection, badness, wickedness, misery, sickness, death we see all around us are proof enough that God doesn't exist?

If you say yes, then we face a very very bleak future for right in front of us is the power to annihilate life - nuclear weapons of unimaginable power when unleashed.

On the other hand if you say no, then why are these "things" happening?

Is there any valid reason why these things are happening and most of all, who is responsible?

If God - do you mean to say that he exist? If so, does he have the Power and Intelligence to stop all of the madness? After all what are these in comparison to the Awesome Universe, let alone infinity?

Will the creator of the Universe have the wisdom to restore EVERYTHING into what it was - perfection?

Or his power is limited to the creation of the universe only?

Does he have the power and wisdom to bring back the dead or he is limited only to the creation of universe?

Can he correct all of the mistakes made by mankind or his power and wisdom is limited?


But if God doesn't exist, then who is responsible?

Here lies the conundrum - to believe or not to believe.

"Out of nothing, comes something"

"Out of something (someone eternal), comes something".

Who has the last Word?

Your conclusion to this matter will have a bearing on how you view life and the future.



edit on 20-11-2013 by edmc^2 because: there and



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


You do realize it's "dam", not "damn", right? One's a beaver-made structure, the other is a curse word. Learn the difference.


Yeah, that was a mistake on my part from not paying attention and typing too quickly.

But, that was awfully pedantic of you, you obviously understood my intended meaning.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 



the complexity and precision are proof of intelligent design...

as we understand intelligence


Well, we know that intellgince makes mistakes in design.

Take for instance a bridge.

I am sure that builders have made mistakes in their designs of bridges before. What makes intelligence intelligent, is the fact that, a sentient creature can tell when a design flaw has been made.

In that way, our mistakes are proof of our intelligence, because we are in a constant state of learning from them and making our designs better.

As for as all of creation, we seem to have been stuck together in a very helter skelter fashion if we are the product of intelligent design.

Like our esophagus and larynx. Choking on food and dying because of it is a sign of a bad design. The larynx and esophagus should not be connected the way they are. A good designer would realize that mistake and correct it. We have yet to be corrected.

Or what about the appendix? An organ that may have served a function at some point in our past but no longer does, and could potentially rupture and kill us.

What if an architect designed a home with a murder hole within in a room in the house? We don't use murder holes anymore, so the room would serve no function. What if he put a bomb in the murder hole, and you have no clue as to whether or not the bomb will go off? And the only way to remove the bomb is by tearing through the foundation of the home?

The entire concept would be an example of poor design.

There are many examples throughout nature of poor design.

The connection of the larynx and esaphagus is a bad design.

The fact that you have to brush your teeth to stop them from rotting out of your head is a bad design.

An entity that is incapable of intrinsically providing its own energy, instead of being reliant on it's outer environment for food, is a bad design.

Connecting the eliminative and sexual organs as one is a bad design.

And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and disconnect the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of being reliant on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.

But, here we are with all of those things still intact.

Honestly, there are so many glaring errors in our "design" I can't fathom how anyone would think we were created by anything intelligent.
edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)


it would probably be better if you just went ahead and told me why the universe is a natural place...

why all that stuff out there and the enormous distances and other life...

just is, came from nothing, and is without purpose.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

spy66
Scientific data have to pass through different chanels before they are published.
There are also many different authors who publish their version to the public as well. Why formulate the information the way they do. I have no answer to that.

But all you have to do is look up the equipent that was used and read the spec. From that you can figure out what was really measured, and compare it to the information published.


I read about 2 methods used... the first one deals with Hubble's constant and Einstein's cosmological constant, which Einstein abandon as his biggest blunder after or right around the time Hubble determined the galaxies were flying away from eachother.

--

"Extrapolating Back to the Big Bang

If we compare the two age determinations, there is a potential crisis. If the astronomers who estimate that 1/H0 is as small as 10 Billion years are correct, then the age of the Universe would be shorter than the age of its oldest stars. This contradiction implies that either the Big Bang theory is incorrect or that we need to modify general relativity by adding a cosmological constant.

Some astronomers believe that this crisis will pass as soon as our measurements improve. If the astronomers who have measured the larger values of 1/H0 are correct and the smaller estimates of globular cluster ages are also correct, then all may be well for the Big Bang theory.


--

the other deals with Globular Clusters, both methods come from NASA site about the measurement of the age of the universe.

the globular cluster method relies largely on the study of our own sun, and how it exhausts its fuel... which is a big big mystery too and it is not definitive how the reactor works...

they seem to be guesses, educated ones... but still guesses.

this comes from the mysteries section on NASA


imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...


edit on 20-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Sorry but your math nor your logic doesn't compute.

So if "The universe is not proof of God" then what is the universe proof of then?

Remember your own logic: A is not proof of B.


The universe is proof of the existence of the universe.

If a thing exists, it has mass and occupies space. It's existence can be verified, either by it's physical presence (we have a live specimen), or by the collection of the evidence of it's affect on an environment (we found fossils, or footprints in mud, we can measure and accurately predict various attributes of the thing in question).

Saying "we exist, therefore, God exists" is poor logic.

A is not proof of the existence of B.
A is proof of the existence of A.


And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and disconnect the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of being reliant on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.


It has no bearing on the existence of God just as an explosion of a house has no bearing on the question of whether E = mc2.


I wasn't refuting the existence of God with that bit. I meant the fallacy of "intelligent design."


In addition, how can you confidently conclude that a design is bad just because of an accident or misused?


The larynx and esophagus are connected. When you swallow food, if you do not synchronize the timing of your breathing with the timing of the action of swallowing...you will choke. If you block the airway long enough you can suffer brain damage, or worse, death.

I am a programmer, so I'll use a computer analogy. Let's say I write a program that receives inputs from two separate sources--a scanner and a database server. So data is flowing from two separate channels that will merge into one channel, and then that leads to the software application.

If that is the case, you have to synchronize when to grab data from the server, and when to grab data from the scanner. If your timing is off, the data collides and the collision kills the application. That could be bad, because maybe you forgot to save your work.

So, a better design would be to leave the two channels separate. That way, the data travels two separate paths and there is no fear of a collision because a collision can't happen. It can't because it was designed not to. THAT, is a far better design than leaving the question of a collision up to chance.

People do not choke because of misuse of the human system. They choke purely by accident from lack of correct timing between swallowing and breathing correctly, because of the connection between the larynx and the esophagus. A better design would be to leave the larynx and esophagus disconnected as two separate paths. I mean, they are tubes whose input leads to two separate subsystems. One input is going to the digestive system, the other input is going to the respiratory system--but, when you are eating, both start from the same channel (the mouth).


Using your own logic, what you're basically saying is that, if a person swallows a chunk of food too soon and too fast and starts choking, it means that his esophagus was a bad design. Correct?


No. That means that the connection between the esophagus and the larynx is a bad design. It simply does not need to be there. It serves no purpose and is dangerous.


If so, what kind of logic is that?


That's actually impeccable design logic.


Furthermore, there's almost 8 billion people in the world, if the esophagus was a bad design, should we all be chocking to death by now?


Uh, no.

The connection between the larynx and esophagus is the problem. The connection. It does not guarantee death, it just means that an accident can occur.

And choking is a pretty big accident.


Furthermore, how did you know that the esophagus was in the wrong place without knowing the full functionality of every organ and system of the entire human body?


We already know all of that. The esophagus carries food to the digestive organs. The larynx carries oxygen to the lungs and the rest of the respiratory system.

The esophagus is not in the wrong place, the problem is the connection to the larynx.


Haven't it occurred to you that its location is just right with respect to the rest of the body?


Once agian, the location is not the problem, it's the connection between two channels that should not be connected. I am not entirely sure where you are getting location? I never stated that location of the esophagus was the error.


For instance, many thought that the appendix was a useless organ. But come to find out, its very presence is important to the immune system.


They are still gathering evidence to figure out what the appendix does.


But really, it's the height of arrogance to say that the human body is a "bad design" while possessing a very very limited knowledge about it.


And, um, how did you deduce what my "limit" is?
The esophagus and larynx are connected, and that connection is the cause of choking. If they were not connected, there would be no choking.

So yeah, that's a design flaw. IF we are the product of "intelligent design."

If someone makes the claim that we are the product of intelligent design, and someone else points out the glaring design flaws that the human body possesses--how is that "arrogant?"

"It doesn't fit in with what I believe."

Yeah, that's pretty much it.
edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

It's like a first grader criticizing that a Stingray Corvette is a "bad design" just because he sees something not quite right based on his current experience and understanding.


No, that's not the same thing at all.

I understand just fine how the esophagus and larynx work.




But in the end your post goes back to this:

Does the imperfection, badness, wickedness, misery, sickness, death, we see all around us are proof enough that God doesn't exist?


Uh, no, that was not my argument at all.

It wasn't one of those "but, if God exists, why does bad stuff happen?!?!?"

My argument was against intelligent design. We are not the product of intelligent design. Because of our design flaws, it can be deduced that nothing intelligent designed us. It is more rational to see how we are the product of "random chance" when you have a system like the human body that has two channels like the esophagus and larynx connected. An intelligent designer would not be that retarded.

Well, either that retarded or that cruel. Maybe God was a teenager and the random chance of a human choking was a joke. I used to design stuff like that when I played Roller Coaster Tycoon and The Sims

Oh yeah, one more thing, it is impossible to actually provide proof of something that does not exist.

Like, if something doesn't exist, that means there is nothing there to find, which means when someone asks for proof of the nonexistence of something you wind up in an infinite loop of stupid.

Unicorns do not exist, and guess what? It is impossible for me to actually provide evidence of their nonexistence. Because if there was evidence, that would mean that they actually exist..which would mean...wait...I am so confused...


If you say yes, then we face a very very bleak future for right in front of us is the power to annihilate life - nuclear weapons of unimaginable power when unleashed.


The truth is often more bleak than fantasy.


On the other hand if you say no, then why are these "things" happening?


Maybe we reincarnate over and over again so our souls gain experiences to evolve into super beings?


Is there any valid reason why these things are happening and most of all, who is responsible?


Valid reason: The growing pains of an evolving species.

Who/what is responsible: I don't know.


If God - do you mean to say that he exist? If so, does he have the Power and Intelligence to stop all of the madness? After all what are these in comparison to the Awesome Universe, let alone infinity?


I don't believe in God, blaming something nonexistent would be pointless.


Will the creator of the Universe have the wisdom to restore EVERYTHING into what it was - perfection?


Or his power is limited to the creation of the universe only?

I have no idea.



Your conclusion to this matter will have a bearing on how you view life and your future.


That's awfully cryptic.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Sorry but your math nor your logic doesn't compute.

So if "The universe is not proof of God" then what is the universe proof of then?

Remember your own logic: A is not proof of B.


The universe is proof of the existence of the universe.

If a thing exists, it has mass and occupies space. It's existence can be verified, either by it's physical presence (we have a live specimen), or by the collection of the evidence of it's affect on an environment (we found fossils, or footprints in mud, we can measure and accurately predict various attributes of the thing in question).

Saying "we exist, therefore, God exists" is poor logic.

A is not proof of the existence of B.
A is proof of the existence of A.


And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and disconnect the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of being reliant on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.


It has no bearing on the existence of God just as an explosion of a house has no bearing on the question of whether E = mc2.


I wasn't refuting the existence of God with that bit. I meant the fallacy of "intelligent design."


In addition, how can you confidently conclude that a design is bad just because of an accident or misused?


The larynx and esophagus are connected. When you swallow food, if you do not synchronize the timing of your breathing with the timing of the action of swallowing...you will choke. If you block the airway long enough you can suffer brain damage, or worse, death.

I am a programmer, so I'll use a computer analogy. Let's say I write a program that receives inputs from two separate sources--a scanner and a database server. So data is flowing from two separate channels that will merge into one channel, and then that leads to the software application.

If that is the case, you have to synchronize when to grab data from the server, and when to grab data from the scanner. If your timing is off, the data collides and the collision kills the application. That could be bad, because maybe you forgot to save your work.

So, a better design would be to leave the two channels separate. That way, the data travels two separate paths and there is no fear of a collision because a collision can't happen. It can't because it was designed not to. THAT, is a far better design than leaving the question of a collision up to chance.

People do not choke because of misuse of the human system. They choke purely by accident from lack of correct timing between swallowing and breathing correctly, because of the connection between the larynx and the esophagus. A better design would be to leave the larynx and esophagus disconnected as two separate paths. I mean, they are tubes whose input leads to two separate subsystems. One input is going to the digestive system, the other input is going to the respiratory system--but, when you are eating, both start from the same channel (the mouth).


Using your own logic, what you're basically saying is that, if a person swallows a chunk of food too soon and too fast and starts choking, it means that his esophagus was a bad design. Correct?


No. That means that the connection between the esophagus and the larynx is a bad design. It simply does not need to be there. It serves no purpose and is dangerous.


If so, what kind of logic is that?


That's actually impeccable design logic.


Furthermore, there's almost 8 billion people in the world, if the esophagus was a bad design, should we all be chocking to death by now?


Uh, no.

The connection between the larynx and esophagus is the problem. The connection. It does not guarantee death, it just means that an accident can occur.

And choking is a pretty big accident.


Furthermore, how did you know that the esophagus was in the wrong place without knowing the full functionality of every organ and system of the entire human body?


We already know all of that. The esophagus carries food to the digestive organs. The larynx carries oxygen to the lungs and the rest of the respiratory system.

The esophagus is not in the wrong place, the problem is the connection to the larynx.


Haven't it occurred to you that its location is just right with respect to the rest of the body?


Once agian, the location is not the problem, it's the connection between two channels that should not be connected. I am not entirely sure where you are getting location? I never stated that location of the esophagus was the error.


For instance, many thought that the appendix was a useless organ. But come to find out, its very presence is important to the immune system.


They are still gathering evidence to figure out what the appendix does.


But really, it's the height of arrogance to say that the human body is a "bad design" while possessing a very very limited knowledge about it.


And, um, how did you deduce what my "limit" is?
The esophagus and larynx are connected, and that connection is the cause of choking. If they were not connected, there would be no choking.

So yeah, that's a design flaw. IF we are the product of "intelligent design."

If someone makes the claim that we are the product of intelligent design, and someone else points out the glaring design flaws that the human body possesses--how is that "arrogant?"

"It doesn't fit in with what I believe."

Yeah, that's pretty much it.
edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)


So really the problem is not in the design but the user of the design. You said so yourself:




When you swallow food, if you do not synchronize the timing of your breathing with the timing of the action of swallowing...you will choke.


The key is synchronization. If we can perfectly time this every time we swallow then there will be no chocking.

Fortunately, out of 8 billion (imperfect) people, chocking accidents are very small. Otherwise like I said - all of us will be chocking by now because of a "bad design".

Now if we only pay attention and make sure to obey mum to chew our food first before we swallow and not talk while eating/chewing, then we'll have no problem.

As for the larynx being connected to the esophagus - I'm glad that it's connected that way otherwise, no upbeat songs sung by the Beach Boys or your fav.


To each its own I guess.


nite...



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Dude. I just can't win for losing with you.

The user is not the problem. The user should not have to worry about the timing in the first place.

If the two were not connected, there would be no need for synchronizations between swallowing and breathing.

That's the damned point.

The connection is erroneous. It is not the fault of the user if they accidentally inhale their food because they screwed up the timing between breathing and swallowing. The connections shouldn't be there in the first place. It's a bad design.

"You may get into a car accident, we could have designed X so that would be impossible, but eh...to hell with it."


edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



The key is synchronization. If we can perfectly time this every time we swallow then there will be no chocking.


Why? Why create something so utterly retarded when they could have easily been separate?


Fortunately, out of 8 billion (imperfect) people, chocking accidents are very small. Otherwise like I said - all of us will be chocking by now because of a "bad design".


"It's a good design, only a small number of people die because of it."

Please, don't ever become an architect or engineer of any kind.

"Only 23 people died from my automobile designs. It was a good design."

A competent designer, during prototype testing, would have said: "choking deaths should be zero. I better reconfigure the connection between the larynx and esophagus."


Now if we only pay attention and make sure to obey mum to chew our food first before we swallow and not talk while eating/chewing, then we'll have no problem.


Yes. Talking is the culprit.

Dude. I choke taking a drink all the time...without talking.


As for the larynx being connected to the esophagus - I'm glad that it's connected that way otherwise, no upbeat songs sung by the Beach Boys or your fav.


Right.

Because the vocal cords are located at the spot where the esophagus and larynx are connected.

Not to mention the fact that, a good designer would have gotten around that hurdle.



To each its own I guess.


Indeed. You might as well stick your fingers in your ear.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
The universe is proof of the existence of the universe.




now that we have evidence that the universe exists, which is more than evidence, it is fact.

lets research the reason for its existence and how it came into being...


edit on 20-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon


It wasn't one of those "but, if God exists, why does bad stuff happen?!?!?"


freewill... we're not in the garden no more.



"we got to get back to the garden"

good lyrics...



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 



there is evidence of a Creator


I am not saying that there is no evidence.

If we found proof that big foot exists, that would mean that we found a living specimen.

So A is proof of A.

The universe is not proof of the existence of God.

An actual God would be proof of a God.
Whatever an actual God would be.


but that's exactly what we found in Jesus... he was a man and existed, there are over a dozen historical accounts of his crucifixion.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join